RAP WG meeting - 8/27/98 (minutes reported by Andrew Smith) Agenda bashing DiffServ discussion moved to end of agenda. Area Director new co-chair Andrew Smith, subject to IESG approval no direction to use DIAMETER Updates to the COPS model - Shai Herzog: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rap-framework-00.txt Presented model - see slides. Emphasises Front-end/back-end split. We only talk about the PEP/PDP protocol and content here. COPS and data representation are separated. Should keep in mind the DiffServ/RSVP edge work (Bernet etc.) and RSVP/MPLS ongoing work. COPS-02 draft - David Durham: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rap-cops-02.txt See slides. COPS encapsulates RSVP objects without understanding them. Accounting support. Security assumed using IPSEC or TCP security. Some changes made since the last interop testing - new DECISION operation which handles both solicited and unsolicited responses, new CONTEXT object, some improvements for indicating end of synchronisation operations, some flags to help configuration mode, removed reference handle. ???: what is the purpose of getting accounting information back to policy server? Durham: So that policy sever can export it into other accounting mechanisms. ???: what about multicast? Durham: Not an issue for COPS Bernet: What about defining objects for DiffServ? Bradner: do this after current work items are done. COPS-RSVP usage - Shai Herzog: draft-ietf-rap-cops-rsvp-00.txt and http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rap-rsvp-ext-00.txt How to interprete RSVP objects and pack them into messages? Only need to notify RSVP's Path, Resv, PathErr, ResvErr messages to PDP. No major changes have occurred recently. Replacement RSVP objects - allows PDP to modify parameters in sessions as a result of policy decisions e.g. replace MD5 keys etc. Report messages allow notification of Commit/Delete decisions based on admission control. Concept of multiple contexts for a decision-request (input, resource allocation, output): can put all 3 in a single request if you want to. See example in slides. Multicast merged policy: this is quite complicated - example is in draft-ietf-rap-cops-rsvp-00 which will get posted as an official draft real soon now. RSVP extensions probably needs to be split - part goes to cops-rsvp and part back into the base RSVP specs. Smith: for multicast, perhaps need to clarify what is protocol rules and which is just example. COPS-RSVP Policy data for User Identity - Tim Moore: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rap-user-identity-00.txt See Slides. Securely identifies a user to an RSVP node in a secure manner. Allows remapping of identity of user e.g. organisation identity at a router. Note that certificates and Kerberos tickets are big - probably good to only put a single one in each RSVP message. Open issues with multicast merging: - Do you merge all the receiver user identities into the message? 3 choices: replace users with a "network identity", generate a "group ID" or don't use the Identity element, use existing integrity object for example. - What if this happens before the policy check? Answer: deploy your policy server before the merge point. Might need to change the RSVP Integrity draft to support this - RSVP WG will probably make some fixes. RSVP Preemption priority - Shai Herzog. Preemption priority exists per reservation. How do you aggregate preemption priorities with the requested QoS? RSVP says "merge to highest QoS". Leads to denial of service (high QoS+low priority preempts >low QoS+high priority). 4 proposed solutions: - Take priority of the highest QoS: killer reservation issues - Take lowest priority: denial of service and instability - Take highest priority: free riders + denial of service + instability - Error - only allow homogeneous flows There is no right answer - choose simple, flexible: define a COPS policy element to tell router what to do so that PDP decides. Will write this up as a draft. Questions: Boyle: do higher numbers mean higher priority? YES Davie: MPLS? Wants to use priority to help auto-reroute of tunnels but keep stability (see http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-awduche-mpls-traffic-eng-00.txt). Will investigate this. Weiss: Who chooses relative priorities of multicast vs. unicast? PDP choice. Is there an RSVP "you've been preempted by policy" error? Not yet, just ResvError for now. Interoperability meeting - Raj Yavatkar. Took place August 5-7th. See slides. Tested interop between servers and clients (5 implementations). Tested basic protocol operations. Vendors have announced products. Future interoperability testing - Arun Sastry/Cisco will be hosting another interop this Fall. COPS for DiffServ - Fran Reichmeyer. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rap-cops-ds-00.txt DS has no explicit signaling but might have a Bandwidth Broker generating such requests (e.g. triggered by H.323 server). PDP needs to pass sufficient filter information down to PEPs. No proposal here for BBs in different domains to talk to each other. Propose a new client type "DiffServ Client". 2 objects, Install/Delete/Enable/Disable operations. Bernet - confusion about where COPS and RSVP fit in DS model - need to clarify this in this draft. Smith - there's nothing specific to DiffServ in the proposal.??? - What is the value of going to a policy server, rather than a directory for example? COPS-DS data objects - Keith McCloghrie. Use SMI data format. Do not use SNMP protocol - see slides for comparison. Elleson: do you think this definition language can be same for Policy BOF (e.g. usable for LDAP)? Yes, probably. Next Steps & Timetable - Tim O'Malley 4 documents on the agenda right now: 1. COPS Framework draft-ietf-rap-framework-00.txt- Tim O' and Raj will complete this. Open issues: reasons why SNMP was avoided, change LDP to something else e.g. "Local PDP". 2. Policy Extensions for RSVP draft-ietf-rap-rsvp-ext-00.txt - need this last called too. Not sure if this is RAP's or RSVP's. Probably needs splitting. 3. COPS-RSVP document draft-ietf-rap-cops-rsvp-00.txt - comments needed: please read it. Simpler multicast example needed. 4. COPS protocol draft-ietf-rap-cops-02.txt - WG last call after Orlando. RSVP Pre-emption priority policy ojects will be written up by Shai and added to this list. Will possibly add the COPS-DS (draft-ietf-rap-cops-ds-00.txt) and user identity policy objects (draft-ietf-rap-user-identity -00.txt) work to RAP charter after submitting base drafts. Summary: Base protocol and RSVP extensions to support it are almost ready for last call - some small clarifications still needed. 4 current documents: {COPS framework, COPS base protocol, RSVP extensions for policy, COPS usage with RSVP} to be forwarded together on standards track. Pre-emption Priority policy objects for RSVP still needs to be written up as a draft (Herzog). Proposed DiffServ extension framework - will work more on this after RSVP work is done (WG is chartered only for RSVP right now). Extensions for User Identity policy objects for RSVP may also be worked then.